And just to keep the dialogue clear, Michelle Bachman and the italian immigrant (i'll say that, because my heritage is italian, and we consider people like Santorum,,, well, less than italian, they are bastardized), I am sure someone will devote quite a few posts about my obvious racism, er bigotry, but as a good italian would tell another Ba Fungool, or Yet tu Zong, or maybe even gidabouse en e scqol la.

Tell interpreting, they are pretty horrible,

So here's the info on the Bachman/Santorum involvement:

While vying for the Republican presidential nomination in 2011, both Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed “The Marriage Vow,” a pledge against same-sex marriage circulated by a Christian conservative group, that included a line about how much stronger African-American families were during the era of slavery. The line, which read, “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President,” was removed from the pledge once word got out—but not until after both Bachmann and Santorum had signed it.
RELATED IN POLITICS

So using the argument of family unity, there are those on the right er, yes, right, that argue slavery was good for the family unit, well, Tito was good for peace in Yugoslavia, but he was a dictator no?

Tito was able to revive the Yugoslav Party and to make it a highly disciplined organization. He cleaned the ranks of disloyal members and gave the party a clear-cut and realistic policy to unite the country. For the first time, the party firmly supported the preservation rather than the breakup of Yugoslavia. Tito was able to develop the Yugoslav Communist Party into a powerful political and military organization during World War II (1939–45), where the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan clashed with the Allied powers of America, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union.

After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in June, Tito ordered the Communist Party to activate a small force to resist the Axis powers. At the same time, a movement headed by Colonel (later General) Draza Mihajlovic gained the support of the Yugoslav king Peter II. Allied officers reported that Tito's movement supported national unity rather than communism, and at the same time reported that Mihajlovic's forces had been cooperating with the Axis troops. This conflict between the two resistance leaders led to a bloody civil war.

But what did slavery really do for the slave?

Well, the mortality rate among children was 66% and on one rice plantation 90%:

Because they lived and worked in such close proximity, house servants and their owners tended to form more complex relationships. Black and white children were especially in a position to form bonds with each other. In most situations, young children of both races played together on farms and plantations. Black children might also become attached to white caretakers, such as the mistress, and white children to their black nannies. Because they were so young, they would have no understanding of the system they were born into. But as they grew older they would learn to adjust to it in whatever ways they could.

The diets of enslaved people were inadequate or barely adequate to meet the demands of their heavy workload. They lived in crude quarters that left them vulnerable to bad weather and disease. Their clothing and bedding were minimal as well. Slaves who worked as domestics sometimes fared better, getting the castoff clothing of their masters or having easier access to food stores.

The heat and humidity of the South created health problems for everyone living there. However, the health of plantation slaves was far worse than that of whites. Unsanitary conditions, inadequate nutrition and unrelenting hard labor made slaves highly susceptible to disease. Illnesses were generally not treated adequately, and slaves were often forced to work even when sick. The rice plantations were the most deadly. Black people had to stand in water for hours at a time in the sweltering sun. Malaria was rampant. Child mortality was extremely high on these plantations, generally around 66% -- on one rice plantation it was as high as 90%.

The threat of sale was also used to keep the slaves docile and compliant, so families could be split up at any time, just like the nazi's did with the jews in germany, and hungary, but what do people do when that happens? they form new families, anyone who has ever read Elie Weisels, "All Rivers run to the Sea" understands that a Hungarian yeshiva student was thrown into a concentration camp with people from other tribes and families, and they found rebbes and rabbis and performed Shabbat, in the camps, that's not an extermination of people folks, that's people showing exactly HOW STRONG they are.

And it was no different for the slaves, they formed families.

But what is clear, is that the south flourished from this cheap and free labor, well oiled, and at the disposal of the rich white land owner.

But were the slaves really better off under slavery? from the mortality rate alone, and the splintering of the family unit, the answer would be no. of course not.

Always go to the opposition if you want real factual arguments, so the argument was, the cotton industry would collaspe, the tobacco industry and the rice industry, did it?

of course it did, the US involved in a war of litigious proportions with regards to trade, slowly watched as trading partners went elsewhere, as they should, I mean, the show must go on,

The country, tearing itself apart, (similar to today) remained an "unsafe bet", didn't it? supply could be cut off at any time, and of course, the costs associated with these products were unstable at best.

Slavery was not a benefactor to the south, as there were many slave uprisings, and of course, not having "cable news" this wasn't as well broadcasted then as it is now; but imagine ANY industry completely rattled by the inconsistent, and chaotic opportunity of uprising, and you'll slowly get the picture as to why this was all an unwise situation.

While slaves revolted, Nat Turner actually Killed white folk, yes, yes, I know, they could have been innocent, fuck that noise, they were in the way, like protesters in the streets, no?

So post the Civil war, did the south ever regain it's footing in the international trade arena?

No, because of several reasons:

1) The southern business owners did not have the experience to negotiate with workers, their workers were slaves at one time, now they had to be flexible, they proved to fail at that.
2) The south's resources left and went north and west, with the exodus of experienced workers, the south suffered a learning curve of productivity, which if you are the UK and you are looking for cotton for your mills in Lancashire, you're going to go somewhere else, that would be India,
3) The poor farmers in debt post the war, tried their hand at cotton growing, but their contributions were like comparing a pea to a piano, that die had been cast, long before they tried their hands at entrepreneurship.
4) More people were in debt in the south, than in any other part of the country, they depended on credit, in fact, the credit explosion nearly tanked a few of the states.
5) the workers were no longer under the thumb of the slave owner, so they could devote more time to family, and they did, so the hours of productivity, sometimes draconian during slavery, gave way to a exponentially smooth work day. This of course, was not to the advantage of the plantation owner.

So based on this,, I would argue that slavery, was NOT good for Africans, nor African Americans, but it sure as hell was good for the Southerners, and the post slavery era has been hell to pay for them every since.

And just to keep the dialogue clear, Michelle Bachman and the italian immigrant (i'll say that, because my heritage is italian, and we consider people like Santorum,,, well, less than italian, they are bastardized), I am sure someone will devote quite a few posts about my obvious racism, er bigotry, but as a good italian would tell another Ba Fungool, or Yet tu Zong, or maybe even gidabouse en e scqol la.

Tell interpreting, they are pretty horrible,

So here's the info on the Bachman/Santorum involvement:

So using the argument of family unity, there are those on the right er, yes, right, that argue slavery was good for the family unit, well, Tito was good for peace in Yugoslavia, but he was a dictator no?

The threat of sale was also used to keep the slaves docile and compliant, so families could be split up at any time, just like the nazi's did with the jews in germany, and hungary, but what do people do when that happens? they form new families, anyone who has ever read Elie Weisels, "All Rivers run to the Sea" understands that a Hungarian yeshiva student was thrown into a concentration camp with people from other tribes and families, and they found rebbes and rabbis and performed Shabbat, in the camps, that's not an extermination of people folks, that's people showing exactly HOW STRONG they are.

And it was no different for the slaves, they formed families.

But what is clear, is that the south flourished from this cheap and free labor, well oiled, and at the disposal of the rich white land owner.

But were the slaves really better off under slavery? from the mortality rate alone, and the splintering of the family unit, the answer would be no. of course not.

Always go to the opposition if you want real factual arguments, so the argument was, the cotton industry would collaspe, the tobacco industry and the rice industry, did it?

of course it did, the US involved in a war of litigious proportions with regards to trade, slowly watched as trading partners went elsewhere, as they should, I mean, the show must go on,

The country, tearing itself apart, (similar to today) remained an "unsafe bet", didn't it? supply could be cut off at any time, and of course, the costs associated with these products were unstable at best.

Slavery was not a benefactor to the south, as there were many slave uprisings, and of course, not having "cable news" this wasn't as well broadcasted then as it is now; but imagine ANY industry completely rattled by the inconsistent, and chaotic opportunity of uprising, and you'll slowly get the picture as to why this was all an unwise situation.

While slaves revolted, Nat Turner actually Killed white folk, yes, yes, I know, they could have been innocent, fuck that noise, they were in the way, like protesters in the streets, no?

So post the Civil war, did the south ever regain it's footing in the international trade arena?

No, because of several reasons:

1) The southern business owners did not have the experience to negotiate with workers, their workers were slaves at one time, now they had to be flexible, they proved to fail at that.
2) The south's resources left and went north and west, with the exodus of experienced workers, the south suffered a learning curve of productivity, which if you are the UK and you are looking for cotton for your mills in Lancashire, you're going to go somewhere else, that would be India,
3) The poor farmers in debt post the war, tried their hand at cotton growing, but their contributions were like comparing a pea to a piano, that die had been cast, long before they tried their hands at entrepreneurship.
4) More people were in debt in the south, than in any other part of the country, they depended on credit, in fact, the credit explosion nearly tanked a few of the states.
5) the workers were no longer under the thumb of the slave owner, so they could devote more time to family, and they did, so the hours of productivity, sometimes draconian during slavery, gave way to a exponentially smooth work day. This of course, was not to the advantage of the plantation owner.

So based on this,, I would argue that slavery, was NOT good for Africans, nor African Americans, but it sure as hell was good for the Southerners, and the post slavery era has been hell to pay for them every since.

Regards
Pace

Blacks weren't the only slaves, yet no one ever talks about the white slaves. Why is that, do you think?

White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.

Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.

This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface.

Blacks weren't the only slaves, yet no one ever talks about the white slaves. Why is that, do you think?

White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.

Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.

This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface.

Wrong is wrong, skin color doesn't make a bit of difference, neither does the number of people involved. Naturally there were more white slave owners than black slave owners. There were proportionally MORE WHITE PEOPLE than black people. And yet, neither group seemed to mind having slaves and took full advantage of their ability to do so.

The percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia

In fact:

"The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815."

And:

When New Orleans fell in late April 1862 to the Union, about 10 percent of these men, not missing a beat, now formed the Native Guard/Corps d'Afrique to defend the Union. Joel A. Rogers noted this phenomenon in his 100 Amazing Facts: "The Negro slave-holders, like the white ones, fought to keep their chattels in the Civil War." Rogers also notes that some black men, including those in New Orleans at the outbreak of the War, "fought to perpetuate slavery."

Wrong is wrong, skin color doesn't make a bit of difference, neither does the number of people involved. Naturally there were more white slave owners than black slave owners. There were proportionally MORE WHITE PEOPLE than black people. And yet, neither group seemed to mind having slaves and took full advantage of their ability to do so.

The percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia

In fact:

"The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815."

And:

When New Orleans fell in late April 1862 to the Union, about 10 percent of these men, not missing a beat, now formed the Native Guard/Corps d'Afrique to defend the Union. Joel A. Rogers noted this phenomenon in his 100 Amazing Facts: "The Negro slave-holders, like the white ones, fought to keep their chattels in the Civil War." Rogers also notes that some black men, including those in New Orleans at the outbreak of the War, "fought to perpetuate slavery."